Latest / International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better / Trump’s Huge Speech, ‘Trump Accounts,’ Chevron Falls, Missouri ATC’s $8k Sunshine Stall, and Why Reg

Transcript

Trump’s Huge Speech, ‘Trump Accounts,’ Chevron Falls, Missouri ATC’s $8k Sunshine Stall, and Why Reg · International Flavor: Where the Truth Tastes Better

• 0:00
  Hello, good morning. Welcome. Uh, this
• 0:02
  is International Flavor. I happen to be
• 0:05
  Samuel Trap coming to you live from the
• 0:07
  Lake Ozark real estate of the art
• 0:10
  studio. Feel free to phone in 573 746820
• 0:14
  and I might even answer the call.
• 0:19
  I suppose the big news, the biggest
• 0:21
  news, the uh Oh, by the way, today is
• 0:23
  Wednesday. You know what that means?
• 0:26
  That means this is the greatest largest
• 0:29
  day in radio history on
• 0:32
  damradio.comlive.
• 0:34
  You can come here and listen up all the
• 0:37
  time to the wonderful uh to the
• 0:41
  wonderful shows on this channel. And
• 0:42
  there's tons of good music too when
• 0:44
  we're not here. And uh so you can also
• 0:47
  go back and listen to all the shows at
• 0:49
  damradio.com/mpodcast.
• 0:52
  my particular show, International
• 0:53
  Flavor. You can go to
• 0:55
  internationalflavor.com
• 0:57
  and listen up. You can email me at
• 1:00
  samualtflavor.com
• 1:04
  should you feel the desire. And
• 1:06
  sometimes I even read my email.
• 1:10
  Some people say that I don't, but
• 1:12
  they're wrong. I do. Uh so Trumpster,
• 1:15
  the old Trumpster um gave a speech last
• 1:18
  night that was uh I hear the longest
• 1:23
  longest state of the union address in
• 1:28
  history. He's always doing things hugely
• 1:31
  huge huge huge. It is huge and we get to
• 1:34
  do it. And people are coming unglued.
• 1:37
  They're coming apart at the seams all
• 1:40
  over the world. Uh, everybody's crying
• 1:42
  about something from his speech. Uh, I
• 1:45
  heard it. I I didn't hear anything uh
• 1:50
  crazy. There there wasn't lunacy in his
• 1:54
  voice. Uh there's, you know, the only
• 1:57
  things I object to on the old Trumpster.
• 1:59
  He tends to beat up on people, but you
• 2:01
  know, that's the way it is. Elections
• 2:04
  have consequences, do they not? uh he
• 2:07
  gave a uh I mean you're saying that the
• 2:10
  Obama monster didn't do the exact same
• 2:13
  thing. I believe he did and uh so I'm
• 2:16
  thinking that uh
• 2:20
  that it was a pretty good speech all in
• 2:22
  all uh he gave the state of the union.
• 2:26
  Do you agree with it all? No. Uh of
• 2:29
  course not. But do you you should agree
• 2:33
  I shouldn't say what you should you can
• 2:34
  believe whatever the hell you want. It's
• 2:36
  the beauty of America. But for me, h
• 2:39
  most of that I was in agreement with
• 2:41
  some of it I I I think is what they call
• 2:44
  So in law school, you go through
• 2:46
  contracts. And in contracts, there's a
• 2:49
  thing called uh puffing.
• 2:52
  Puffery. Uh so you engage in puffery
• 2:56
  when and the greatest example of course
• 2:59
  is to use car salesmen. And the example
• 3:02
  at least my professor in in law school
• 3:04
  would always give about this would be
• 3:07
  okay so the used car salesman says uh
• 3:11
  you know this car was owned by a little
• 3:13
  old lady. She all she used she got in
• 3:15
  the car every day and she went from her
• 3:17
  house to the grocery store. So this car
• 3:19
  is owned by a little old lady. Now, are
• 3:22
  you ever going to have to prove that
• 3:24
  that car was owned by a little old lady
• 3:26
  who only drove it from her house down to
• 3:30
  the old Mini Mart every day to pick up a
• 3:32
  new bottle of wine and, you know, a
• 3:35
  couple of boxes of crackers with some
• 3:37
  salami and cheese? Obviously, I have
• 3:40
  some salami and cheese on the brain. Um,
• 3:43
  cuz I really like that. You know, that's
• 3:44
  a good snack. Maybe we should take a
• 3:46
  break. I'll put it on pause, run to the
• 3:49
  local grocery store in my truck that
• 3:52
  used to be owned by a little old lady,
• 3:54
  and use it for the exact same purpose.
• 3:57
  Nope, that's not what I will do. I'm
• 3:58
  already here. And but puffery is just
• 4:05
  advertising your brand, basically saying
• 4:08
  the things that you think are important
• 4:11
  that people would like to hear about the
• 4:13
  brand. So the state of the union always
• 4:16
  has a bunch of that because obviously
• 4:19
  the interpretation of the state of the
• 4:21
  union some people will say because you
• 4:23
  know Trump said something that was
• 4:25
  actually this part kind of is music to
• 4:27
  my ears where he says uh zero people
• 4:30
  have been allowed in the country uh just
• 4:33
  crossing the border you know and here's
• 4:35
  your your illegal aliens don't just have
• 4:38
  a wide open gate to come running in and
• 4:41
  support the Democratic party and get
• 4:43
  free um
• 4:46
  uh uh health care, get to get sign up to
• 4:48
  get them some social security because
• 4:50
  they're disabled and start getting
• 4:52
  benefits. That's, you know, a a very
• 4:54
  good percentage of them are coming here
• 4:57
  for that. Now, is there also a good
• 5:00
  percentage that are coming here for the
• 5:02
  American dream and to work because they
• 5:04
  can work and send money back home to
• 5:06
  their to their families? And uh the the
• 5:08
  United States is supposed to be the
• 5:10
  melting pot and the United States gives
• 5:13
  these benefits and a lot of them come
• 5:14
  here and extremely productive. One side
• 5:17
  will focus on the productive people, the
• 5:19
  other side will focus on the criminal.
• 5:22
  And there's plenty of both. Okay? And so
• 5:25
  when you hear things like no illegal
• 5:27
  aliens, well, you know what? I'm all for
• 5:30
  that. I think the gate should be open.
• 5:33
  The gate should be open. We should allow
• 5:35
  people in. uh you know according to
• 5:38
  specific rules because you want to move
• 5:40
  to I don't know Russia you you have to
• 5:43
  uh follow the rules and you have to get
• 5:46
  in according to their rules. You have to
• 5:49
  be a productive member. You don't just
• 5:50
  get go over there and start getting free
• 5:52
  stuff unless you're Ukrainian headed
• 5:54
  into Germany or Poland or anywhere in
• 5:57
  Europe. You get free crap. And the same
• 5:59
  in America by the way. You come over,
• 6:01
  you fly over, you claim that gez, I had
• 6:03
  to run from Ukraine because there's a
• 6:05
  war there, by the way. Who started that?
• 6:07
  And then uh you get social security for
• 6:11
  a period of time. You know, I was pay I
• 6:14
  was paying guys to work for me. Day rate
• 6:17
  that I would say, I only need you a few
• 6:19
  days. We got to do some work. And I'm
• 6:20
  paying 250 a day. 250 bucks to them a
• 6:24
  day. Meanwhile, they're pulling two
• 6:26
  grand from the government every month.
• 6:29
  The US government, they're getting two
• 6:30
  grand. They got a food stamp card that
• 6:32
  they're pretty proud of. Look, I got
• 6:34
  this card. They get free residence to
• 6:36
  live live in a in a in a building to get
• 6:38
  housing for free. And what the hell are
• 6:41
  they paying for? And so they get so you
• 6:44
  get no rent, free food, and a and a and
• 6:47
  a stipend of whatever it is from the
• 6:49
  from social security. You know, the
• 6:51
  average rate, you know, for you know, I
• 6:53
  don't get any yet. I'm not that old, but
• 6:56
  it's coming. And I keep getting these
• 6:58
  statements that tell me what I'm gonna
• 7:00
  get from my my my uh work. And the old
• 7:03
  Trumpster says that that's going to be
• 7:04
  taxfree uh for our seniors. I wonder if
• 7:07
  it's tax-free for the Ukrainians and
• 7:09
  come over and get it for free. By the
• 7:11
  way, I'm not against Ukrainians coming
• 7:13
  over and getting it for free. We started
• 7:15
  a war. We the West uh pushed war over
• 7:18
  there along with a lot of Ukrainians
• 7:21
  pushed for war for the last 30 years
• 7:23
  against Russia and and that's where we
• 7:25
  are today. So we, you know, if we force
• 7:28
  it, why shouldn't they be able to come
• 7:29
  over here and get free stuff? I don't
• 7:32
  agree with it. I don't go to Europe.
• 7:35
  Europe believes in free stuff. Go over
• 7:37
  there and get your free stuff. Uh
• 7:39
  somebody told me one time when I was in
• 7:40
  Austria. Uh so I'm Austrian by by
• 7:44
  heritage. my uh you know I'm part of the
• 7:46
  von traps and uh uh that year 100 years
• 7:49
  ago my mom knows the story exactly but
• 7:52
  uh the the uncle or the some relative of
• 7:56
  captain von traps uh came to the United
• 8:00
  States uh before von trap did and uh uh
• 8:04
  we descend from that dropped the fawn
• 8:07
  and now we're just plain old ordinary
• 8:09
  trap no royalty for us except for one
• 8:12
  certain brother who thinks he's better
• 8:13
  than everyone else and gets to uh
• 8:16
  upgrade himself to font trap and oh gee
• 8:19
  look how important I am and uh that's
• 8:22
  not that's not what I feel nor do the
• 8:24
  rest of my brothers and sisters although
• 8:27
  certainly we are descendant from them uh
• 8:29
  but somebody told me that when I was
• 8:31
  gone over there if it's Austria and by
• 8:33
  the way my on my mother's side they're
• 8:35
  all from the Bond Germany area and
• 8:38
  Linberger very very German name and I've
• 8:41
  been over there toured all over the
• 8:43
  places over there. But I spent a lot of
• 8:45
  time in Austria. I went to the Vont Trap
• 8:47
  family mansion uh several times in
• 8:49
  history. Once in the '9s, once in the
• 8:52
  2000s, and one, I'm sorry, in the in the
• 8:55
  teens, and then once in the 20s. And I
• 8:57
  and I love it over there. It's a
• 8:58
  beautiful country, beautiful everything.
• 9:00
  One of the times I was there, they said
• 9:01
  if I came over,
• 9:03
  if I came to Austria, because there's
• 9:06
  Austrian heritage in my background, I
• 9:09
  could become an Austrian citizen easier
• 9:12
  than most because I can prove my
• 9:14
  descendency from, you know, the fun
• 9:16
  traps and uh so I could go over there
• 9:20
  and get all the get free stuff. I'd get
• 9:22
  a retirement from these guys. And uh I
• 9:25
  was like, "Huh, well, that's cool.
• 9:26
  Austria is a fantastic country, you
• 9:28
  know. I like it. It's beautiful. A lot
• 9:31
  of Europe is beautiful. And uh you know,
• 9:34
  that's where a lot of heritage from
• 9:35
  America comes from is uh is Central
• 9:38
  Eastern. Well, all over Europe. And uh
• 9:41
  so, you know, there's some beautiful
• 9:42
  stuff over there. But I don't believe in
• 9:44
  free stuff, but Europe does. And uh uh I
• 9:48
  believe I believe here in the United
• 9:49
  States, you know, I've paid in to the
• 9:52
  damn system for uh forever. I you know,
• 9:54
  I want my tax freeze that old Trumpster
• 9:57
  is promising. And I like that. I'm not
• 9:59
  against it. So, there's plenty of stuff
• 10:01
  to go over on that, but a lot of people
• 10:03
  on the other side of the planet are
• 10:04
  bitching about uh the speeches from
• 10:07
  yesterday. I I mean, I'm not. I thought
• 10:10
  it was pretty reasonable. I got a clips,
• 10:12
  a couple of clips I'd like to cover for
• 10:14
  you, but the crying immediately from
• 10:16
  your legacy media types getting out
• 10:18
  there. They're all crying. I should
• 10:20
  share the crying part. You know, it's
• 10:22
  not crying, but it's been, "Oh, Jesus
• 10:24
  highly partisan and here he went and uh
• 10:27
  he's saying bad things and he hates
• 10:29
  aliens. That's obvious." And he hates
• 10:32
  Democrats. You tell me Democrats didn't
• 10:34
  do the exact same thing under Obama and
• 10:37
  the and the Republicans didn't stand up
• 10:39
  when uh Biden was giving a speech.
• 10:42
  Nobody stood up when that guy was
• 10:44
  mumbling through his his his Q cards,
• 10:48
  you know, uh at least on the Republican
• 10:50
  side, you know, and and that's
• 10:54
  speaking from a guy who usually watches
• 10:56
  the State of the Union. Usually watching
• 10:59
  watching the advertising brand from
• 11:01
  either side is really all this is. you
• 11:03
  get to advertise and talk about how
• 11:05
  positive it is under your uh under your
• 11:09
  uh rule, your leadership, your
• 11:12
  dictatorship, your method of uh of uh
• 11:15
  running the country. And uh you know,
• 11:18
  the Democrats say one thing, uh
• 11:20
  Republicans say another. And so I want
• 11:23
  to share with you just a tad from this
• 11:26
  uh uh uh there's I have an 8 minute clip
• 11:30
  and I got a twominute clip here and I'm
• 11:33
  thinking that I would prefer to share
• 11:37
  the uh twominut clip and then uh uh
• 11:41
  Kaiakalis is I got something from her
• 11:44
  too. She's a lunatic and uh well she's
• 11:46
  not a I shouldn't say that. She hasn't
• 11:48
  been diagnosed that I'm aware of, but
• 11:51
  listening to her is
• 11:55
  an exercise. Let's put it that way. And
• 11:58
  uh it's how come I can't find my
• 12:00
  history? Why am I having such troubles
• 12:02
  today? Because I just am. Where's my
• 12:06
  history? Your account, your data. Where
• 12:09
  is your freaking history, Samuel? Let us
• 12:13
  go in uh Sam's history. No.
• 12:18
  Well, I thought I had it all jazzed up
• 12:21
  and ready to go and uh I just don't. Um,
• 12:26
  history history playlist
• 12:29
  liked videos and
• 12:32
  I hate babbling like that. Drives me
• 12:34
  crazy. Let's uh let's get let us begin
• 12:38
  at the beginning. And here come the
• 12:40
  highlights from the old Trumpster.
• 12:42
  beginning at the beginning. So long as I
• 12:46
  have the Q card queued up,
• 12:51
  we'll stop him along the way for
• 12:53
  commentary.
• 12:54
  >> All Democrats, every single one of them,
• 12:57
  voted against these really important and
• 13:00
  very necessary massive tax cuts.
• 13:05
  >> He's talking about the seniors and tips
• 13:08
  and all that stuff and none of them. We
• 13:10
  wanted
• 13:12
  largescale tax increases to hurt the
• 13:15
  people instead.
• 13:17
  >> And as soon as they're back in charge,
• 13:18
  that's exactly what they'll do.
• 13:23
  >> But we held strong and with the great
• 13:26
  big beautiful bill, we get
• 13:28
  >> I'm against most of the great big
• 13:30
  beautiful bill, but I absolutely believe
• 13:32
  with the tax cuts, you got to see Chuck
• 13:33
  Schumer here.
• 13:36
  He's all depressed. He's got this uh uh
• 13:39
  grin and well, what do you call it? A uh
• 13:41
  what do you call a a horror grin? Grin
• 13:44
  of horror.
• 13:45
  >> Gave you no tax on tips, no tax on
• 13:48
  overtime, and no tax on social security
• 13:51
  for our great
• 13:52
  >> time to stand up. All Republicans and
• 13:54
  the Democrats just sit there with their
• 13:56
  thumbs inserted.
• 13:59
  But even the generals didn't stand up.
• 14:01
  They can't be political. Supreme Court
• 14:03
  justices. Nope. They're sitting all in a
• 14:06
  little club group.
• 14:07
  >> And we also made interest on auto loans
• 14:10
  tax deductible. The
• 14:12
  >> That's interesting. That's cool.
• 14:13
  >> Only if the car is made in America.
• 14:16
  >> Oh, no. I own a a Toyota. That's not
• 14:19
  true.
• 14:22
  >> But some Toyotas are made in America.
• 14:27
  >> Recently in Pennsylvania, I met Megan
• 14:29
  Hemhouser.
• 14:31
  >> Yeah, I don't need to hear these
• 14:32
  gratification things. I don't really
• 14:34
  care about that. That that clip I didn't
• 14:35
  like. I think it was at about the
• 14:37
  2-minute mark. I wanted to go
• 14:41
  standing up again. Cheering for
• 14:43
  somebody. So, there was a lot of
• 14:44
  cheering. He had the Olympic team.
• 14:46
  >> Please stand up. We're fighting for you.
• 14:47
  >> And Megan's being fought for, you know.
• 14:49
  That's great. She's already standing cuz
• 14:51
  she didn't even get a seat.
• 14:54
  >> She's that important. No seat for you.
• 14:57
  >> Thank you, Megan. We're fighting for
• 14:59
  you, Megan.
• 15:00
  >> That's true. Under our bill, parents
• 15:02
  like Megan can also activate their
• 15:04
  children's brand new Trump accounts.
• 15:07
  >> Now, this is a good idea. I like this.
• 15:10
  >> I did not name that.
• 15:12
  >> So, when I when um my first grandchild
• 15:16
  was born, I went and got a whole life
• 15:20
  policy for that child cuz they're so
• 15:22
  cheap. And if you're looking for an
• 15:24
  interesting gift, something that will
• 15:26
  actually matter to a grandchild, tell
• 15:30
  you what, go get them a whole life
• 15:33
  insurance policy. I I use Northwestern
• 15:36
  Mutual, but get it from one of the
• 15:38
  biggies that's been around a hundred
• 15:40
  years and get a life insurance policy
• 15:42
  for that child in the amount of whatever
• 15:45
  you think, uh, 25,000, 50,000. Since
• 15:48
  they're so young, it is extremely cheap.
• 15:51
  and all the money you send to it. So the
• 15:54
  way whole life works if you're unaware
• 15:56
  is whole life works where you pay the
• 15:58
  policy costs upfront. Then what you can
• 16:01
  do and and and what I did is I paid for
• 16:05
  that policy for whatever 10 12 years and
• 16:08
  the policy exists now for the rest of
• 16:11
  her life and it has a cash value and it
• 16:14
  is and it grows. That cash value grows.
• 16:17
  Nothing huge. I never even look at it,
• 16:19
  you It's a it's I own it, but when she
• 16:22
  is of age, I plan to transfer it to her.
• 16:24
  And it's uh uh she'll get whatever the
• 16:27
  value is. It cost you like 25 50 bucks a
• 16:29
  month, whatever it costs that you send
• 16:31
  it in there. You just make it an
• 16:32
  automatic. It's money you forget about
• 16:34
  anyway. And it's a hell of a gift for a
• 16:37
  whole life insurance policy. I thought
• 16:40
  was a good gift. And uh it has cash
• 16:43
  value. It has all that stuff. And you
• 16:44
  can transfer it to them when they get
• 16:46
  older or just keep it, you know,
• 16:48
  whatever. But uh they're insured for
• 16:50
  life and it's accumulating value for
• 16:54
  life and it's got it's a so and they so
• 16:57
  the insurance policy you don't have to
• 16:59
  put any money in it after a certain time
• 17:01
  because the insurance comes out first
• 17:03
  the cost of the insurance for life comes
• 17:05
  out first and they make their money
• 17:08
  trust me the the insurance company makes
• 17:10
  their money and it continues to gain
• 17:12
  rest but the biggest factor in your
• 17:15
  favor you know if I go and buy a whole
• 17:17
  life insurance policy today that is the
• 17:20
  same amount as what her whole life
• 17:21
  policy cost when you know same amount of
• 17:24
  insurance I mean so you got a 100,000
• 17:26
  50,000 I wanted 100,000 insurance policy
• 17:29
  I'd be paying out the rear end for that
• 17:31
  because of my age but if id have bought
• 17:33
  one when I was one I'd have had a policy
• 17:36
  that existed forever so I think it's a
• 17:38
  good uh a good investment and uh so if
• 17:41
  you're looking for a gift for a child uh
• 17:44
  that is born uh get them a whole life
• 17:46
  policy it seems to work and it's a good
• 17:48
  deal. And uh there you have it. I Let's
• 17:51
  see. You know what? Uh we're going to
• 17:53
  continue a little bit more of the
• 17:54
  Trumpster. And then I have something
• 17:55
  else for you.
• 18:01
  Nobody believes me, but I did not name
• 18:03
  it. It was named by a very tall man
• 18:05
  sitting right there in the third row.
• 18:08
  Nice man, a good man. Tax-free
• 18:11
  investment accounts for every American
• 18:13
  child. This is something that's so
• 18:15
  special, has taken off and gone through
• 18:17
  the roof. Millions will be
• 18:19
  >> I had never heard of this uh Trump plan
• 18:21
  for children. But trust me, I'm looking
• 18:23
  into it now because if they're getting
• 18:24
  in it anyway, all that stuff I just said
• 18:26
  to you about whole life might not be
• 18:28
  there. But this is this is all it's one
• 18:31
  or the other. You know, if if Trump has
• 18:32
  designed it on that principle, which I
• 18:34
  really don't know, that would be pretty
• 18:36
  cool. prefunded courtesy of the US
• 18:38
  Treasury and private individuals like
• 18:41
  Michael and Susan Dell who have donated
• 18:45
  six billion $250 million to fund the
• 18:48
  Trump accounts for 25 million American
• 18:51
  children.
• 18:53
  >> That is freaking cool. True. True that.
• 18:55
  And and and I think that is awesome.
• 18:59
  >> That's a hell of a tax cut. Next time I
• 19:01
  get 6.5 billion, I'm going to donate it
• 19:03
  to somebody.
• 19:06
  A little pocket change, you know,
• 19:08
  donations.
• 19:09
  >> And I asked Michael Dell, "How do you
• 19:11
  make all that money?" He said, "Well, I
• 19:13
  just sat on my dorm in school and I made
• 19:17
  computers and I'd sell them to people
• 19:19
  and I just kept selling and selling and
• 19:22
  selling and pretty
• 19:23
  >> Well, there you go. Yep. Those are
• 19:25
  American stories. The American dream,
• 19:27
  folks. It is alive and well for the
• 19:31
  Dells and people who sit in their dorm
• 19:33
  room and create computers. Wish I was
• 19:35
  one of them geeks that uh you know I was
• 19:37
  a geek anyway, but they didn't uh I
• 19:39
  didn't make computers. I was a uh a book
• 19:42
  nerd. You know, I was the book report
• 19:44
  dude. Um anybody in school could come to
• 19:48
  me and I'd read every book and they'd
• 19:50
  say, "Write me a book report." And I'd
• 19:52
  charge him a dollar a page. That's I I I
• 19:54
  never upped it over the years. And I
• 19:56
  think that was my problem. if and uh
• 19:58
  plus it has it was a limited business
• 20:00
  model. Where else are you going to do
• 20:02
  book reports for a dollar a page? You
• 20:04
  kind of leave school and suddenly your
• 20:06
  whole business model evaporates. You got
• 20:08
  nothing. And uh so my my first business
• 20:11
  was a failure. Um and I became a a bor
• 20:16
  of hay for a period of time riding on
• 20:19
  the back of a of a hay wagon throwing up
• 20:22
  bales of hay that were larger than me
• 20:24
  cuz I was rather small in those days.
• 20:26
  Not that I'm big these days, but there
• 20:29
  you have it. And I'm sort of rambling
• 20:31
  today and I want to get to my other
• 20:33
  topic. And um
• 20:36
  I I read to you my reports, my civic
• 20:39
  outlaws reports, and I spoke a little
• 20:41
  bit about our uh sunshine law requests
• 20:46
  um yesterday. And I've done a little bit
• 20:49
  of research on my take. I gave you my
• 20:53
  take on the u overturning by the Supreme
• 20:59
  Court of the Chevron doctrine. Now my
• 21:02
  take on it is is I'm a strict
• 21:05
  constructionist is what I am. I I I
• 21:08
  believe that power should reside in its
• 21:12
  proper lane. That that's what the
• 21:14
  founders intended. This is what I
• 21:16
  intend. And I want to read to you a
• 21:19
  different point of view because a lot of
• 21:22
  people say that the overturning of
• 21:24
  Chevron, trust me, this and and then the
• 21:26
  the Missouri courts following up with
• 21:30
  that in uh statute 530 revised Murray
• 21:34
  Missouri statute 536.140.
• 21:37
  They see that as a huge
• 21:40
  loss. It's an enormous loss for them for
• 21:43
  these type of people um
• 21:46
  that don't want you know they want the
• 21:49
  growth of big government. Those people
• 21:52
  exist and they exist everywhere. So when
• 21:54
  when I am somewhat
• 21:57
  negative of some of the things that the
• 21:59
  old Trumpster the government is doing
• 22:01
  it's not because of Trump. It's not
• 22:02
  because of It's not because of who Well,
• 22:05
  sometimes it's because of who he is
• 22:06
  because the way he addresses people and
• 22:09
  and and is always confrontational and
• 22:12
  somewhat rude. I I really don't like
• 22:14
  that style. Okay. But you could argue
• 22:17
  the same thing about me. It's just more
• 22:18
  of a personality thing than anybody
• 22:21
  because every time he does it, I lose
• 22:24
  interest in what he is saying. That's
• 22:27
  the problem for me, right? It's like
• 22:29
  every time he goes like he just said,
• 22:32
  "Uh, here's a guy who who named the bill
• 22:34
  and he's a very tall man sitting right
• 22:36
  there and he's a great man. He's a great
• 22:38
  man." Well, Elon Musk used to be a great
• 22:41
  man, right? And then he became the
• 22:43
  antichrist, right? And so it it it just
• 22:46
  I don't like those sort of platitudes. I
• 22:49
  don't like those sort of attacks. I just
• 22:53
  am negative. People are people.
• 22:55
  Sometimes they do things that you love
• 22:57
  and sometimes they do things that you
• 22:59
  don't. I appreciate all of it. They're
• 23:02
  people. People are wonderful. People are
• 23:04
  varied. People have different opinions.
• 23:06
  You don't have to agree with them to
• 23:09
  decide to dislike them. You don't have
• 23:11
  to dislike them because you disagree
• 23:14
  with them. You might try to convince
• 23:16
  them, but geez, everybody turns it into
• 23:18
  emotional trauma
• 23:20
  and they're destroyed for life. People's
• 23:23
  opinions are wonderful and and and and
• 23:26
  convincing people of something is one of
• 23:28
  the the best things that you could uh
• 23:31
  engage in in life. You know what I mean?
• 23:34
  And and convincing them of your point of
• 23:37
  view instead of believing what they and
• 23:41
  so that's what I like. I like
• 23:43
  convincing. I like talking. I like uh
• 23:48
  engaging if at all possible. and uh
• 23:54
  I just uh wanted to
• 23:58
  uh
• 24:00
  I don't know say that I disapprove of
• 24:02
  that type of uh of of issue. So at any
• 24:06
  rate um here we go. The there was a
• 24:10
  little bit more of the old Trumpster,
• 24:11
  but I think we're going to ignore that
• 24:13
  for now because I want to get to this
• 24:14
  Supreme Court thing. So I shared with
• 24:16
  you the the case called Loperbrite
• 24:20
  Enterprises v Rundo in which the Supreme
• 24:23
  Court overturned
• 24:26
  uh the Chevron doctrine and what that is
• 24:29
  is deference. It means
• 24:32
  if a if a a a statute is created, if a
• 24:37
  law is created by the legislature and
• 24:40
  signed by the executive branch through
• 24:42
  the president, uh then it becomes law
• 24:46
  and it is unclear. Maybe there's a term
• 24:50
  in there that is unclear. Maybe they
• 24:52
  haven't been definitive enough to put
• 24:56
  something uh I don't know to to uh
• 25:00
  create the right
• 25:03
  term in there. They haven't defined a
• 25:06
  term properly in their questions that
• 25:08
  the Supreme Court after Chevron which
• 25:11
  was u 70s 73 I can't remember uh the
• 25:15
  Chevron uh was 40 years just about 40
• 25:18
  years a little bit more that uh the the
• 25:21
  court would defer to the professional
• 25:27
  bureaucrat right which I'm totally
• 25:29
  against absolutely against that and I
• 25:33
  fight that every day in civic outlaws
• 25:35
  and and and in part it's because of this
• 25:37
  you know because for years this is what
• 25:39
  they've allowed and and and I think the
• 25:41
  bureaucrats need to go and I've detailed
• 25:44
  uh quite a few things about what a just
• 25:46
  one agency we well we've gone into
• 25:49
  several but then more coming but the
• 25:51
  focus has been uh alcohol tobacco
• 25:54
  control and they are out of control
• 25:57
  alcohol tobacco control has turned into
• 26:00
  gaming machine control has turned into
• 26:02
  cigarette rep machine control. Of
• 26:04
  course, that's in their lane, though.
• 26:06
  I'm okay with that. And it's turned into
• 26:09
  uh uh regulation of what a woman can
• 26:12
  wear. And it's nonsense in a place that
• 26:14
  sells alcohol. And so, they've and and
• 26:17
  they're carrying guns. These people are
• 26:20
  carrying guns to uh uh I don't know,
• 26:23
  defend a liquor license. you know that
• 26:25
  we're like in 1930 when you know there's
• 26:27
  a beer runner running you know
• 26:30
  interstate beer you know like Smokey and
• 26:32
  the Bandit and they're picking it up in
• 26:34
  Tex Arcana because there's uh boys are
• 26:37
  thirsty in Atlanta and you know they're
• 26:40
  running stuff you know they're running
• 26:42
  illegal alcohol you know that's not
• 26:44
  happening that's not what if they're
• 26:46
  after that and that's what these guys
• 26:47
  are doing then fine but that isn't what
• 26:50
  they're doing it's not that way we're
• 26:53
  not having gun and alcohol runners just
• 26:56
  because somebody happens to own a bar.
• 26:59
  So, they go into bars that they
• 27:01
  disapprove of, which may include
• 27:03
  gentleman's clubs, by the way, just so
• 27:05
  you know. May include places where uh uh
• 27:08
  people uh in truck stops, might include
• 27:11
  that where a trucker is relaxing and
• 27:13
  they have uh uh what do you call it?
• 27:17
  Uh you know, they got to stop. The
• 27:18
  government requires them to stop however
• 27:20
  many hours. What are they supposed to
• 27:22
  do? sit in their truck the whole time.
• 27:24
  So, they go in and they have these
• 27:26
  gaming machines, some that cost money,
• 27:28
  some that don't. Why are we against
• 27:30
  them? I don't know. What do you care if
• 27:32
  somebody wants to put their money in in
• 27:35
  a in a slot machine? Who gives a rip?
• 27:37
  And uh what difference does it make to
• 27:40
  you, oh, regulator? You know, that kind
• 27:43
  of thing. And so the the the impetus of
• 27:46
  all of this for me is the finally
• 27:49
  somebody did something about this
• 27:52
  deference. Okay. And I wanted to share
• 27:55
  with you an alternative position. And
• 27:59
  this was actually written last year.
• 28:01
  Okay. Because Chevron deference ended in
• 28:05
  um June I believe it was is when the
• 28:08
  decision came out. June of 2024.
• 28:11
  Now, the law when you make a major
• 28:13
  change like that really takes a little
• 28:15
  while to e to work its way through the
• 28:18
  system because cases regarding this type
• 28:21
  of thing will have been filed
• 28:23
  immediately afterwards. Somebody would
• 28:25
  say, "Well, now I'm going to get those
• 28:27
  a-holes because this is what they did to
• 28:29
  me." So, this will give me a reason to
• 28:31
  fight uh ICE. this will give me a reason
• 28:34
  to fight the Department of Energy or
• 28:37
  whatever regulatory agency that you want
• 28:39
  to that has stretched their authority
• 28:42
  for the last 40 years and the Supreme
• 28:44
  Court now says it's wrong and you can
• 28:47
  sue and by the way there's big money in
• 28:49
  it because if you can prove the
• 28:50
  violation and you can prove that you get
• 28:53
  damages because of it under uh 42 USC
• 28:56
  section 1983 you can get damages if
• 28:59
  they've overreached and done something
• 29:01
  like that you can get damages is in
• 29:03
  federal court,
• 29:06
  excuse me, and I forget how the uh how
• 29:09
  it uh attaches to it, but if you got a
• 29:11
  federal case, it's a federal agency. You
• 29:13
  can do it. Now, if a state agency has
• 29:16
  broken federal law, you can go after
• 29:17
  them, too. It's hard to win. You know,
• 29:20
  there are a lot of lot of uh immunities
• 29:22
  that they get to log into, but these
• 29:25
  days it's lightening up. Now, I've I
• 29:28
  haven't been anti-government, but I've
• 29:30
  spent a fair amount of time when I was
• 29:32
  practicing law in suing the state, suing
• 29:36
  uh state actors all during Chevron
• 29:40
  deference was Chevron deference where
• 29:43
  you the court would defer. So, if it
• 29:46
  came to court, if you've sued somebody
• 29:48
  before and you sued them before June of
• 29:52
  2024, federal agency, and you sued them
• 29:54
  in federal court, and a term came up
• 29:58
  that the court was trying to consider,
• 30:00
  the court would say, and the the
• 30:02
  attorney for the plaintiff would say,
• 30:04
  "Geez, it doesn't give them the
• 30:05
  authority to act. They don't have the
• 30:07
  authority to interpret or create this
• 30:10
  interpretation." The court, a court
• 30:12
  because of the Chevron doctrine would
• 30:15
  say to say, "Well, you know, these are
• 30:19
  professional regulators.
• 30:21
  They know what they're doing. We need to
• 30:24
  defer to that expert, that overpaid,
• 30:27
  fat, bloated pocketbook." And I don't
• 30:31
  mean fat in the physical form. I mean
• 30:33
  they got a big fat pocketbook because
• 30:35
  they get to do whatever they want. We
• 30:37
  get to take those regulators down.
• 30:41
  And uh but uh previously under the
• 30:44
  Chevron doctrine the court would say
• 30:46
  well big fat wallet regulator
• 30:49
  uh you are the expert here. So we will
• 30:54
  defer to you. We won't interpret. We'll
• 30:57
  just say well they're the professionals
• 31:00
  and they know what the legislature
• 31:02
  meant. They do what they're going to
• 31:04
  what they're going to do. know why I I I
• 31:08
  disagree with that interpretation.
• 31:10
  Always have. And so when Loper Bright
• 31:13
  came out, it's like, "Oh my god, are
• 31:15
  they fixing this?" Because my strict
• 31:18
  construction
• 31:20
  uh constitution guideline says there are
• 31:23
  three branches of government.
• 31:25
  Legislature uh creates the law.
• 31:29
  Executive branch approves the law and
• 31:32
  carries it out as written. And if
• 31:35
  there's a dispute, what does the uh the
• 31:38
  judicial branch do? They interpret what
• 31:42
  was meant. Or more importantly, they
• 31:44
  say, "You know what, uh, regulator, you
• 31:47
  can't do that because the legislature
• 31:50
  never gave you the power." But for 40
• 31:52
  years, they were saying, "Well, you
• 31:54
  know, you're the experts. You you should
• 31:57
  know what uh what Congress intended." I
• 32:00
  think that's a [ __ ] view. It was
• 32:02
  wrong then. It's wrong. Now, but I want
• 32:05
  to give you a uh a different
• 32:07
  interpretation of that written by who is
• 32:10
  this guy
• 32:12
  there? There's a a a what's this called?
• 32:14
  Uh NRDC.
• 32:17
  Who are these people? Uh
• 32:21
  I see the writer, but I'm trying to
• 32:23
  figure out what NRDC
• 32:25
  means. Ah, Natural Resources Defense
• 32:30
  Council, a charitable organization. I'm
• 32:33
  sure certainly a lobbying organization.
• 32:36
  And so this was written by contributor
• 32:39
  named Jeff Turentine. And it was written
• 32:42
  in uh about June 28th of 2024, little
• 32:46
  bit after like quite recent after the uh
• 32:50
  Supreme Court ruled upon the uh Chevron
• 32:53
  Doctor. So I I'm sharing this because of
• 32:55
  the opposing viewpoint and and and as we
• 32:57
  go through I'll stop when I'm not
• 32:59
  reading his words, but here here's what
• 33:01
  he here's what he said.
• 33:03
  US Supreme Court's ruling today in
• 33:05
  Loperbride Enteris versus Raondo dealt a
• 33:08
  severe blow to the ability of federal
• 33:11
  agencies to do their job.
• 33:15
  Uh-huh. I disagree with that opening
• 33:18
  statement uh in its totality, all of it.
• 33:22
  And then he continues, "Do their jobs by
• 33:24
  ending the 40-year-old president of
• 33:27
  Chevron deference." He loved difference
• 33:30
  because regulators get to regulate
• 33:32
  instead of here's here's why. Instead of
• 33:36
  deferring to the expertise of agencies
• 33:40
  on how to interpret ambiguous language
• 33:42
  in a law that pertains to their work.
• 33:46
  Federal judges now have the power to
• 33:48
  decide what a law means for themselves.
• 33:51
  Oh my god. A judge judge has to do his
• 33:55
  job of interpreting the law. And it says
• 33:58
  as a result, here's his thesis. This
• 34:00
  whole paragraph, when you write
• 34:02
  something, the thesis is the first
• 34:03
  paragraph usually. And he says, as a
• 34:06
  result, despite not being accountable to
• 34:09
  the people, this is the big deal. They
• 34:11
  aren't accountable to the people like
• 34:13
  regulators are however I ask the
• 34:17
  question as a result despite not being
• 34:19
  accountable to the people judges can now
• 34:23
  expand their role into the realm of
• 34:26
  policymaking.
• 34:28
  So judges are now creating policy
• 34:30
  according to his in my view skewed view.
• 34:34
  And he here he says, "In one fell
• 34:36
  swoop," he's quoting somebody else, "In
• 34:38
  one fell swoop, the majority today gives
• 34:41
  itself exclusive power over every open
• 34:45
  issue, no matter how expertised driven
• 34:49
  or policy laden involved the meaning of
• 34:53
  regulatory law," wrote Justice Elena
• 34:56
  Kagan in her descent from the ruling.
• 35:00
  She is all for deference to powerful
• 35:04
  regulators. But a powerful judge, no,
• 35:08
  that shouldn't exist right now. I have I
• 35:10
  have things to say about that as well.
• 35:12
  And as if it did not have enough on its
• 35:15
  plate, she continued, by the way, uh
• 35:17
  Kagan, if it is as if it did not have
• 35:20
  enough on its plate, the majority turns
• 35:22
  itself into the country's administrative
• 35:25
  zar. Well, what were you in the first
• 35:28
  place? It's your job, Miss Kagan or
• 35:32
  Justice Kagan. You That's your job to
• 35:36
  interpret the law. I say, you know, the
• 35:39
  lane is the lane, you know, and she's
• 35:41
  like, "No, we don't have a lane. We're
• 35:42
  supposed to sit up here with our thumbs
• 35:44
  up our asses doing nothing." And the
• 35:47
  then when the legislature creates
• 35:48
  something and the president signs it,
• 35:50
  then we we don't have to do anything. We
• 35:53
  don't have to interpret a word. That
• 35:55
  should be done by uh also an unelected
• 35:59
  bureaucrat. Where do they get their
• 36:02
  power? Because they took a job in their
• 36:04
  when they were 30 as a as a secretary in
• 36:07
  a um in a regulatory agency and worked
• 36:10
  their way up through the through the
• 36:12
  ranks and are now what you say an
• 36:15
  expert? Would they still be an expert if
• 36:18
  grandpa got him the job in the 30 years
• 36:20
  prior? or does that have any bearing on
• 36:22
  it? And grandpa still takes care of him
• 36:24
  and and uh now they're uh having lunches
• 36:27
  with lobbyists and they've created all
• 36:29
  their power and consolidated over the
• 36:31
  years. Is that a problem to you
• 36:33
  regulator lover?
• 36:36
  Anyway, the article continues, "The
• 36:38
  decision has profound consequences." I
• 36:41
  agree with that. Not only for the
• 36:43
  countries that here's what they're going
• 36:44
  to beat you up with rule of law, but
• 36:48
  also for how agencies such as those
• 36:51
  protecting the public, yeah, they're
• 36:53
  protecting the public, all right,
• 36:55
  against everything from pollution and
• 36:57
  contaminated food to workplace hazards
• 37:00
  and rising drug prices are able to
• 37:03
  function. Here's what you need to know.
• 37:05
  That is his opening salvo, right?
• 37:09
  The opening salvo is gee, these
• 37:11
  unelected judges, these politically
• 37:14
  placed judges are going to be
• 37:16
  interpreting the law. Well, that's what
• 37:18
  they do. That's what the the founders
• 37:22
  put them in place to do for God's sake.
• 37:24
  But he's under in the defense of, of
• 37:26
  course, he's looking for the national uh
• 37:29
  resource or whatever it was called,
• 37:30
  whatever that uh uh charitable
• 37:32
  organization is on resources. He's
• 37:35
  defending, you know, these uh natural
• 37:37
  resources, right? He's defending the uh
• 37:40
  the planet, you know, in his view, he's
• 37:42
  defending the planet. So, a fellow
• 37:44
  defending the planet uh regulator should
• 37:47
  be able to interpret, which is exactly
• 37:49
  what they did in Chevron so long ago.
• 37:52
  They interpreted I went through that
• 37:54
  with you a few days ago. Okay? So, he is
• 37:57
  against what the B and he said the next
• 37:59
  section of it is balance of power. We're
• 38:02
  taught in school and he here's his
• 38:04
  alternative view to my view. Ready?
• 38:08
  We're taught in school about how the US
• 38:10
  government's separation of powers, which
• 38:13
  I see as clearly being inside your own
• 38:15
  lane, is supposed to work. He says
• 38:18
  Congress writes the laws. The executive
• 38:21
  branch carries them out and the
• 38:24
  judiciary, including the Supreme Court,
• 38:26
  here's the difference, resolves argument
• 38:29
  about what the laws mean and evaluates
• 38:32
  whether they're being enforced properly.
• 38:35
  In reality, these powers overlap at
• 38:38
  times between the branches of government
• 38:41
  and overall the system relies on a
• 38:44
  certain degree of trust. Yeah, you got
• 38:47
  to trust your regulator. And we don't. I
• 38:51
  do not trust the bureaucrat. And given
• 38:54
  the choice between trusting a career
• 38:58
  bureaucrat who does nothing but expand
• 39:01
  their own power and say and take
• 39:04
  additional power not granted to them by
• 39:07
  the legislature and the president and
• 39:10
  use it. They get to interpret it. The
• 39:12
  only way you can get it is to sue
• 39:14
  somebody and then the judge is supposed
• 39:17
  to interpret the differences in that.
• 39:19
  That's how it's supposed to work. But
• 39:21
  this guy thinks regulators are the are
• 39:23
  the, you know, God's gift to the planet,
• 39:25
  which I disagree with.
• 39:28
  So, for instance, here's continuing with
• 39:30
  his article. For instance, as society,
• 39:33
  technology, and the economy have grown
• 39:35
  more complex. It's very detailed. How
• 39:38
  would this judge know anything?
• 39:40
  Basically, so too has the task of
• 39:43
  governance of being a bureaucrat. You
• 39:45
  know, he's he's about to tell you how
• 39:46
  wonderful it is. Because Congress is not
• 39:50
  equipped to micromanage day-to-day
• 39:52
  administration of the legislation that
• 39:55
  it passes,
• 39:56
  it must rely on federal agencies under
• 39:59
  the supervision of the president to
• 40:02
  carry out laws and policies according to
• 40:04
  their best good faith interpretations.
• 40:07
  Yeah, a regulator needs to interpret,
• 40:10
  not a judge. Disagree, friends and
• 40:13
  neighbors. Likewise, federal judges have
• 40:16
  a role in determining the mean of
• 40:18
  Congress's laws in order to settle
• 40:19
  disputes. But the act of policymaking
• 40:23
  has always belonged to the two elected
• 40:26
  branches. Okay, there's an element of
• 40:28
  truth to that. That's actually true. The
• 40:31
  policym is between the two branches.
• 40:35
  So why should a regulator be allowed to
• 40:39
  create law? Where is it said in their uh
• 40:45
  grant of power which the power only
• 40:48
  comes from the legislature that they can
• 40:50
  take a particular term and interpret it
• 40:52
  this way. They can because why would the
• 40:55
  legislature create a set definition for
• 40:57
  a set uh group of things and leave one
• 41:02
  definition or two definitions out? Why
• 41:05
  would they? They're supposed to be the
• 41:07
  experts. They can change the law at any
• 41:09
  time. They do it all the time. Why is
• 41:11
  the law not supposed to be firm in that
• 41:15
  regard? Why not? Why not? Did you see
• 41:18
  the people heckling the uh the
• 41:21
  president? I forgot about that part.
• 41:23
  That was entertaining, too. He was being
• 41:25
  heckled and he had signs and somebody
• 41:27
  walked him out. Um anyway, for instance,
• 41:30
  that's what the people in the east are
• 41:33
  uh are uh east, you know, to east of
• 41:37
  east of the ocean that separates us from
• 41:40
  Europe and uh the all the all the
• 41:43
  globalist people. At any rate, society
• 41:46
  blah blah blah blah blah uh the policym
• 41:49
  has always been there. Today, however,
• 41:52
  the Supreme Court seized for both. It
• 41:56
  took both of them itself and lower court
• 41:59
  judges are now have a policying role
• 42:01
  policymaking role the constitution did
• 42:04
  not intend for them to have. Now that's
• 42:07
  a mistaken view
• 42:10
  disputes
• 42:13
  determinations of what the legislature
• 42:15
  intended have always been
• 42:20
  always been
• 42:22
  with the courts. The court gets to
• 42:24
  determine that, right? And here it says,
• 42:26
  here's final deal. The court court
• 42:28
  stripped many federal agencies tasked
• 42:31
  with protecting public health, public
• 42:33
  safety, and the environment. For him,
• 42:36
  that's the important one. including the
• 42:38
  US Environmental Protection Agency which
• 42:41
  got the first deal against Chevron in
• 42:43
  the first place or was part of that and
• 42:46
  the US Food and Drug Administration to
• 42:48
  name just two of their own power to
• 42:51
  interpret the laws they carry out. They
• 42:54
  get to interpret the law. He even says
• 42:56
  it right here. They interpret what what
• 42:59
  is that? Instead, federal judges now get
• 43:03
  to call the shots.
• 43:06
  Federal judges are now calling the
• 43:09
  shots. No, the federal government,
• 43:11
  federal judges are telling the
• 43:13
  legislature to do its job and telling
• 43:16
  the executive branch to stay in your
• 43:18
  lane. That is what they call strict
• 43:21
  construction. I am a strict
• 43:23
  constructionist. I believe the
• 43:26
  constitution had three sets of powers
• 43:30
  and that interpretation has always been
• 43:33
  the realm of the judiciary. Do I always
• 43:36
  agree? Absolutely not. Do I agree with
• 43:40
  Chevron difference? Did I way back when?
• 43:42
  Absolutely not. Because that doesn't put
• 43:47
  an unelected regulator in his lane. He's
• 43:51
  create you. He is creating the law. He
• 43:54
  is interpreting the law and creating his
• 43:57
  own policy and law. Now, sometimes you
• 44:01
  could say at the behest of the president
• 44:04
  of the United States or of the state in
• 44:07
  that regard, but uh that's how it works.
• 44:11
  You know, that's how the system is
• 44:13
  supposed to work strictly.
• 44:16
  Then he goes into how is uh you know,
• 44:19
  what is Chevron deference and how does
• 44:21
  it work? It's the latitude federal
• 44:23
  judges give agencies to interpret
• 44:26
  statues they administer in a dispute. 40
• 44:30
  years ago, Supreme Court articulated a
• 44:32
  two-part test. And this test is what I
• 44:35
  disagreed with all along. Judges examine
• 44:38
  the wording in context of a statute in
• 44:41
  question to see if congressional intent
• 44:43
  was clear. If it is, then the matter is
• 44:47
  settled. The agency is obliged to follow
• 44:50
  the letter of the law. What it comes
• 44:53
  down to is this. If Congress has left an
• 44:56
  agency with a policy choice, the agency
• 44:59
  should make it not the court is what
• 45:02
  they say. Okay. A policy choice. How how
• 45:05
  do you know if they've given a policy
• 45:07
  choice?
• 45:09
  Why? Why? Because Okay. So, you can
• 45:12
  change it every time a a uh a change in
• 45:16
  power comes, they get to change the
• 45:18
  focus, right? when why is it why is it
• 45:23
  that when uh the
• 45:26
  uh
• 45:28
  Democrats take office when Joe Biden
• 45:30
  took office they opened the borders
• 45:33
  opened them wide because that was his
• 45:35
  policy choice right but if the law says
• 45:39
  you can't do that and the law says you
• 45:42
  can't what would say why would a a
• 45:45
  regulator a friend of the of the I don't
• 45:48
  know whichever lobbyist just got him his
• 45:51
  job as the head of uh ICE. Why would it
• 45:54
  why would that guy get to change it and
• 45:56
  open all the doors and let it go and
• 45:58
  just say, "Well, it's my policy. We let
• 46:00
  people come in." Which is exactly what
• 46:02
  they do. And they do it anyway,
• 46:04
  regardless of what by the time it works
• 46:06
  through to the level of the Supreme
• 46:08
  Court,
• 46:10
  the damage is already done anyway, one
• 46:12
  way or the other. And so, uh either way,
• 46:16
  it's still a slow working system. And uh
• 46:19
  but if a statutory language is
• 46:21
  ambiguous,
• 46:22
  if if it has two or more reasonable
• 46:24
  interpretations, the court if it's going
• 46:27
  to must under Chevron must defer to the
• 46:31
  AY's choice in how to carry out the law.
• 46:34
  No. What the court is saying is you
• 46:36
  cannot be ambiguous. Why are we creating
• 46:40
  an ambiguous law? legislature create a
• 46:43
  law that if anything the interpretation
• 46:47
  by the by the uh judges is saying
• 46:51
  freaking legislature do your job interp
• 46:54
  you know say what you want you make the
• 46:57
  choice this the president can sign it
• 46:59
  and then these people have to do it okay
• 47:04
  they have to engage in this that's what
• 47:07
  they have to do there isn't an agency
• 47:10
  choice I didn't give the agent a choice
• 47:12
  unless I put it specifically in the
• 47:14
  statute that says if a person is trying
• 47:17
  to cross the border and they're they
• 47:19
  don't have a regular you know a way to
• 47:21
  get in here they don't have you can't
• 47:24
  provide this or that or the other thing
• 47:25
  or they've been rejected before then
• 47:29
  they may not come in shall shall shall
• 47:32
  they shall not be granted admission. If
• 47:35
  that's the law and you're opening the
• 47:37
  gate then you're wrong. Why are we
• 47:40
  opening the gate? However, if the law
• 47:42
  said I, you know, the legislature
• 47:44
  created a law that said the guy at the
• 47:47
  border, he has the choice to allow you
• 47:49
  in or not to allow you in, and the guy
• 47:51
  at the border makes that choice right
• 47:54
  there. That is what they call
• 47:57
  difference, a choice, something to do.
• 48:00
  But if a new person comes in and says,
• 48:02
  "Open the gates." Wait a minute. The law
• 48:05
  says we can't just open the gates. The
• 48:08
  judge says you can't just open the
• 48:10
  gates. And there you have it. Uh anyway,
• 48:14
  I hope I hope I've explained that well
• 48:16
  enough.
• 48:18
  So, it was in 1984 that it was Chevron
• 48:23
  USA versus who? The natural refor
• 48:26
  resource defense council, the same one
• 48:28
  he's writing this article for. This
• 48:31
  juristprudential doctrine underpinned US
• 48:34
  administrative law ever since and has
• 48:37
  governed some of our most important
• 48:39
  protections, he calls it, involving
• 48:42
  pollution, food safety, and more. So, if
• 48:44
  you want to know how the the the
• 48:46
  regulators became kings, go back to 1984
• 48:51
  and look at the ruling in Chevron versus
• 48:54
  Natural Resource Defense Council when
• 48:56
  Chevron lost and the court said you the
• 49:00
  natural, you know, the interpreter of
• 49:03
  the law is the regulator.
• 49:06
  That's what happened. Okay, you can
• 49:09
  agree with it or disagree with it. I I
• 49:10
  can appreciate his point of view. I
• 49:13
  disagree with it because I'm a strict
• 49:15
  constructionist and strict
• 49:17
  constructionists would disagree with
• 49:19
  this. Right? So, a guy named David
• 49:23
  Donner argued that Chevron case on
• 49:26
  behalf of NRDC, which at the time was
• 49:29
  trying to get the EPA to adequately
• 49:31
  enforce pollution controls at industrial
• 49:34
  facilities under the Clean Air Act.
• 49:36
  Well, he sure twisted that a little bit.
• 49:38
  The agency under President Reagan was
• 49:41
  more inclined to pursue industryfriendly
• 49:44
  deregulation than decreasing pollution.
• 49:48
  Citing statutory ambiguity, Reagan's EPA
• 49:52
  said, well interpreted the Clean Air Act
• 49:55
  said that the interpretation was
• 49:57
  surprisingly much more to the liking of
• 50:00
  polluters and industrial facility owners
• 50:03
  like Chevron. The court ultimately ruled
• 50:05
  in favor of the agency and the president
• 50:08
  of Chevron deference was born. Remember
• 50:11
  me talking to you about this a week ago,
• 50:13
  two weeks ago maybe um on Civic Outlaws
• 50:17
  podcast which comes up on Fridays and uh
• 50:19
  there I you know talk I'm going to talk
• 50:21
  this week about some sunshine law
• 50:23
  requests we've done for uh alcohol
• 50:25
  tobacco uh and and another article that
• 50:28
  I wrote on that. And uh so
• 50:32
  you want to talk about how rewards work?
• 50:35
  This is how rewards work. You get
• 50:37
  rewarded. Now, if I win some of this
• 50:39
  stuff that I'm doing, trust me, I want
• 50:41
  my reward. No, I'm kidding. But uh uh I
• 50:44
  I I want to get my uh my u my position
• 50:48
  in DC running the planet like this guy
• 50:51
  did. You know, this uh lawyer who helped
• 50:54
  win that case. Okay. He won that case
• 50:57
  because he convinced the Supreme Court,
• 51:00
  which by the way didn't really lean in
• 51:02
  the favor of uh of of the Reaganites
• 51:05
  then. Anyway, they were able to say,
• 51:08
  "Wait a minute, the the agency should
• 51:11
  get to interpret that law." And remember
• 51:13
  what it was about. It was about whether
• 51:15
  a state could put its own twist on what
• 51:19
  the EPA was requiring and whether an
• 51:22
  individual machine in a plant for
• 51:25
  example a large plant whether an
• 51:28
  individual machine could be replaced and
• 51:30
  targeted or if one is targeted that
• 51:33
  shuts down the entire plant. It was
• 51:35
  along those lines. And so they had the
• 51:38
  they had the discretion to either shut
• 51:41
  down the whole plant or address it
• 51:43
  toward a particular uh uh piece of
• 51:46
  equipment in the plant and the court
• 51:49
  deferred to whatever the regulator chose
• 51:54
  incorrectly in my humble opinion. But
• 51:57
  there you have it. It was overruled. And
• 51:59
  now that this case, the case that
• 52:02
  overruled Chevron Loperbrite vaundo pits
• 52:06
  the owners of the New England Fishing
• 52:08
  Company against the federal government,
• 52:10
  federal agency, the National Marine
• 52:12
  Fishery Service, NMFS.
• 52:15
  The Magnus Stevens Act set catch limits
• 52:18
  to prevent over fishing and required
• 52:21
  fishing boats to have a
• 52:22
  governmentappointed inspector on board.
• 52:25
  You got to have them on board to monitor
• 52:28
  their compliance so you don't overfish.
• 52:30
  Fishing companies incur the cost of
• 52:32
  these monitors. So the fishing company
• 52:34
  has to pay to put a federal dude on the
• 52:37
  boat. In Loper Bright's case, they were
• 52:40
  paying $700 a day to have this federal
• 52:43
  dude sit on the the boat with them. But
• 52:47
  the company argued that NMFS had no
• 52:49
  authority to force it to do so, to pay
• 52:53
  the $700. A district court disagreed,
• 52:57
  reasoning that Congress had left the
• 52:58
  question open for the agency to decide.
• 53:01
  So, the agency gets to decide whether or
• 53:04
  not it can charge somebody it's
• 53:05
  regulating $700 a day. Why would the
• 53:10
  agency get to decide that? Why wouldn't
• 53:12
  the legislature say, "Hey, you put these
• 53:15
  guys in. It's to federal government. Why
• 53:17
  in the world are you taxed to pay for
• 53:20
  these guys? A separate tax. Taxes pay
• 53:22
  for the federal government. You a-holes.
• 53:25
  That's my That's my uh that's that's a
• 53:27
  samism that's not in the article. The
• 53:30
  company argued they didn't have any
• 53:31
  authority. Applying Chevron in this case
• 53:35
  down below in the lower court. The court
• 53:38
  deferred to NMFS's
• 53:40
  choice that the boat owner should pay.
• 53:43
  And the federal appeals court affirmed
• 53:46
  that decision also following Chevron.
• 53:50
  Now somebody if you can get the Supreme
• 53:53
  Court to listen to you because they
• 53:55
  never listen. Remember they get
• 53:57
  submitted 11,200 cases a year and they
• 54:01
  hear 50 60 they don't hear any cases.
• 54:05
  They reject everything you know
• 54:06
  everything gets rejected and uh they
• 54:09
  call it cert denied. Cersari denied. You
• 54:12
  send in all your stuff, cost you $10,000
• 54:15
  to print a book. They say this with a
• 54:18
  little bit of uh uh knowledge because
• 54:20
  I've done it myself. Then they reject
• 54:22
  the book and you got to pay for it again
• 54:26
  because it has a spelling error. A page
• 54:28
  is in the wrong spot. So you pay $10,000
• 54:31
  again just to get and and nobody reads
• 54:33
  it. Some clerk reads it and then they
• 54:35
  throw it out. You know, they say, "Well,
• 54:37
  sir denied. Nobody's going to read it.
• 54:39
  The court doesn't have to do their job.
• 54:41
  So don't go thinking the Supreme Court
• 54:43
  is doing its job for real. They pick and
• 54:45
  choose which jobs they want to take.
• 54:47
  They don't want to be overworked for
• 54:48
  God's sake. You can't do that. Holy
• 54:52
  crap. What if we had to hear 1100 cases
• 54:55
  and actually decide them on the merits
• 54:57
  or looking at what was done below? We
• 54:59
  don't have to do that. We'll just have a
• 55:01
  clerk read it, say, "Ah, the justices
• 55:03
  don't need to hear that." And move on.
• 55:05
  Okay, that's how I feel about it.
• 55:08
  So the plaintiffs ruled for the Supreme
• 55:10
  Court and in May 2023 the court said it
• 55:13
  would hear that one. That was one of the
• 55:15
  50 to 60 cases right that it chose to
• 55:19
  hear. So at the time in 1984 Chevron
• 55:22
  vers NRDC ruling Donner the lawyer for
• 55:25
  NRDC said he noted it was widely
• 55:28
  perceived in legal political circles
• 55:30
  that judges in the lower courts were
• 55:32
  inappropriately crafting policy by
• 55:35
  deciding for themselves what certain
• 55:37
  laws meant. So he's saying at the time
• 55:39
  because the first interpretation is
• 55:41
  going to be lower court judges that
• 55:43
  lower judge court judges were
• 55:45
  interpreting the instead of the
• 55:47
  administrator were interpreting. Okay.
• 55:49
  But the judges up above are saying
• 55:51
  judges down below have to do their jobs.
• 55:54
  They are supposed to interpret. They
• 55:55
  aren't supposed to defer to the
• 55:57
  legislature. So the Supreme Court got it
• 55:59
  right in this overturning of Chevron.
• 56:02
  This is absolutely correct from a a
• 56:05
  strict constructionist type of guy. But
• 56:08
  people who want the government to rule
• 56:09
  the planet, those people know that the
• 56:13
  big power is in the middle levels of
• 56:16
  government. this eternal
• 56:19
  lifelong
• 56:20
  separate. They're not the middle class.
• 56:23
  They're not the upper class. They're not
• 56:25
  the lower class. They are the government
• 56:28
  bureaucrat class. And they all support
• 56:31
  each other. You want to know where the
• 56:33
  deep state resides?
• 56:35
  Check it out right there. It exists in
• 56:39
  the mid to higher level career
• 56:42
  bureaucrat
• 56:44
  who never leaves. If you want to put
• 56:47
  term limits in, put the term limits in
• 56:50
  for those a-holes. Get them out of
• 56:53
  office. That's what I say. So, but he
• 56:56
  says the author of this book who's
• 56:58
  writing on behalf of NRDC who lost what
• 57:01
  they had had for years this
• 57:02
  interpretation of Chevron deference and
• 57:05
  and uh he he calls it his next part
• 57:08
  partial is and this was written right
• 57:10
  after the Supreme Court made the ruling
• 57:13
  uh on on Loperbrite and he said it's a
• 57:15
  recipe for chaos. Right.
• 57:19
  The order, the old order, in and of
• 57:21
  itself is apolitical because Chevron
• 57:24
  swords cut both ways. An administration
• 57:27
  seeking to relax protections such as
• 57:29
  Reagan EPA in the Chevron case. Agency
• 57:32
  heads won't like having their decisions
• 57:34
  overruled by judges with a different way
• 57:37
  of seeing things. for presidential
• 57:38
  administrations prioritizing climate
• 57:41
  action, curbing pollution, promoting
• 57:42
  environmental justice according to him.
• 57:45
  And I say just taking power for
• 57:47
  themselves and telling you what you will
• 57:49
  do as a citizen or as a company under
• 57:52
  their strict rule, the the ruling class
• 57:55
  of bureaucrat, bureaucratic ruling
• 57:57
  class. Hey, you know what? We ought to
• 57:59
  call it that. A new class, BRC.
• 58:01
  Bureaucrat ruling class. BRC, that's
• 58:03
  what it's called. uh for presidential
• 58:05
  administrations prioritizing these
• 58:07
  things. Chevron deference has allowed
• 58:10
  has helped allow environmental progress.
• 58:14
  Oh yeah. Because you can appoint some
• 58:16
  kid who's never had a job in his life,
• 58:18
  just out of college and all he ever did
• 58:20
  was carry around a sign saying no more
• 58:22
  oil. He don't know why. Somebody just
• 58:25
  told him run around with that sign.
• 58:26
  Well, now he can't figure out how to get
• 58:27
  a job. So where does he go? The
• 58:29
  regulator class. He gets in there. Then
• 58:31
  he says, "Hey man, I was against these
• 58:33
  boats in in college. Some guy paid me to
• 58:36
  be part of a protest and so I'm against
• 58:38
  them now, too." And he's the guy
• 58:40
  interpreting your statutes over the next
• 58:42
  30 years while he doesn't have to do
• 58:44
  anything. I disagree with the
• 58:46
  bureaucratic government employee class.
• 58:50
  Those are the people that I'm against.
• 58:52
  Okay? I'm also against it. Uh uh uh
• 58:55
  term, you know, I want term limits on
• 58:57
  everybody, including in the courts, by
• 58:59
  the way.
• 59:01
  Anyway, Chevron deference detractors me
• 59:04
  argue that the doctrine gives agencies a
• 59:08
  rubber stamp to impose ownorous
• 59:10
  restrictions and rules. Absolutely true.
• 59:15
  Welcome to my world against the alcohol
• 59:17
  tobacco control people who've done
• 59:20
  exactly that for years.
• 59:23
  But as noted by the Brennan Center for
• 59:25
  Justice. Yeah. He calls them a
• 59:28
  nonpartisan law and policy institute.
• 59:31
  Yeah. Pull this leg. It plays jingle
• 59:33
  bells. I swear. Federal agencies face
• 59:36
  legal challenges to the rule all the
• 59:39
  time. And only prevail in about 70% of
• 59:43
  these challenges even with the Chevron
• 59:46
  doctrine on their side. In other words,
• 59:49
  the regulators powers according to him.
• 59:51
  He says their powers are far from
• 59:55
  unchecked.
• 59:58
  That is uh an interesting take on the
• 1:00:01
  Chevron doctrine.
• 1:00:03
  I think it's important that an an
• 1:00:06
  ordinary citizen understand this. And I
• 1:00:09
  don't mean anything negative when I say
• 1:00:11
  the word ordinary. I'm an ordinary
• 1:00:14
  citizen. You know, I just I believe that
• 1:00:17
  that people need to understand what your
• 1:00:20
  government is supposed to be doing.
• 1:00:23
  Why Why did America get founded? Why,
• 1:00:26
  friends and neighbors, why? Why were
• 1:00:29
  people running away? They were running
• 1:00:32
  away from what they called tyranny. And
• 1:00:35
  where did that tyranny come from? The
• 1:00:38
  government. And so when you hear all
• 1:00:40
  through the 80s, 90s, zeros, and tens,
• 1:00:45
  when uh you, you know, hey, I'm a
• 1:00:47
  regulator, I'm with the government, I'm
• 1:00:50
  here to help. And you disliked it. They
• 1:00:52
  knew that they were in charge anyway.
• 1:00:56
  Why? Deference. People deference. And
• 1:01:00
  guess what? The courts are loaded with
• 1:01:02
  the same type of people who loved that
• 1:01:06
  deference. So if you think Chevron
• 1:01:08
  doctrine necessarily changed it in the
• 1:01:11
  favor of the people who like strict
• 1:01:13
  construction like me, the law takes
• 1:01:16
  years. The 40 years that it took for
• 1:01:19
  deference, the first 5 to 10 were people
• 1:01:23
  fighting the fact they were they were
• 1:01:25
  saying the deference decision was wrong.
• 1:01:28
  What are you doing? Why are you
• 1:01:29
  deferring to that? We're strict
• 1:01:31
  constructionists. And there were a
• 1:01:32
  number of judges in lower courts who
• 1:01:34
  would rule that and then get overturned
• 1:01:36
  by cir denied at the Supreme Court. And
• 1:01:40
  so the law, especially the
• 1:01:42
  interpretation of the law, takes a long
• 1:01:45
  time to work its way through the system
• 1:01:48
  until 40 years later, the court
• 1:01:51
  realizes, oh my god, that was a mistake.
• 1:01:55
  And why did our founders make it this
• 1:01:57
  way? They did it this way in the hope
• 1:01:59
  and the prayer that this country would
• 1:02:04
  be able to withstand such governmental
• 1:02:10
  upheavalss and the evils of government.
• 1:02:13
  They knew at the time when they were
• 1:02:15
  founding this country in order to form a
• 1:02:18
  more perfect union. They didn't say
• 1:02:20
  perfect union cuz it's not. It's far
• 1:02:24
  from it. And so the only way it works is
• 1:02:28
  you have these upheavalss from time to
• 1:02:30
  time. Someday,
• 1:02:33
  who knows how long from now, it'll go
• 1:02:36
  back the other way. That is the way that
• 1:02:38
  pendulums work. They go one direction
• 1:02:42
  and then right back in the other
• 1:02:44
  direction. That's where they go. That's
• 1:02:46
  what they do. Right now, the regulator
• 1:02:49
  has taken a hit. the career the career
• 1:02:52
  bureaucrat. And I'm not against
• 1:02:54
  administrators. I'm against bureaucrats.
• 1:02:57
  You want to be a govern administrator
• 1:02:59
  and do your job the way you're supposed
• 1:03:01
  to, not interpreting things, not
• 1:03:04
  expanding your own your own uh I make
• 1:03:07
  that judgment. I'm in charge. No, you
• 1:03:10
  want to be in charge. Go make your own
• 1:03:12
  company. Otherwise, all we're doing is
• 1:03:14
  the legislator and your boss who signed
• 1:03:17
  it. even if he isn't the current boss,
• 1:03:19
  say different governor, different
• 1:03:21
  president, the law is the same. We're,
• 1:03:25
  you know, I've always objected to uh
• 1:03:27
  presidents coming into office. I was
• 1:03:29
  against it when Trump did it. I was
• 1:03:31
  against it when Obama did it. And and
• 1:03:33
  you've watched it. In fact, I I I used
• 1:03:35
  to have a uh you know what? I'm going to
• 1:03:37
  try to look for it if I can do two
• 1:03:38
  things at once. Um there used to be a
• 1:03:42
  chart that I read.
• 1:03:44
  Um, I'm going to try to find it real
• 1:03:47
  quick because I think there it is right
• 1:03:49
  there. Yep. I've done the search before.
• 1:03:51
  Number of executive orders put out by
• 1:03:54
  each president. Okay. And there's a site
• 1:03:57
  called there's the American presidency
• 1:03:59
  project which is has an edu ending and
• 1:04:03
  it's the table that is presented that
• 1:04:05
  shows the executive orders issued by
• 1:04:08
  president. The president has been
• 1:04:10
  expanding his own power and telling his
• 1:04:13
  agencies what they are going to do. And
• 1:04:15
  I've been against this this all the way
• 1:04:20
  on these executive orders. So I think
• 1:04:22
  there's an archive that shows how many.
• 1:04:26
  Yep. Here it is. Executive orders
• 1:04:29
  and then the uh total average per year.
• 1:04:33
  And it's cool. It's at presidency.b.
• 1:04:38
  What is that? Uh, what university is
• 1:04:41
  this? It's called the American
• 1:04:42
  Presidency Project. Oh, here it is.
• 1:04:45
  ucanta Barbara. So, uh, that's what it
• 1:04:48
  is. ucsb.edu
• 1:04:50
  statistics is where I'm getting this
• 1:04:53
  information. And it says, click for more
• 1:04:55
  information about Trump's projects. A
• 1:04:58
  lot of people are against, you know,
• 1:04:59
  Trump and against it all the way down,
• 1:05:01
  but it's listed by all the way down. And
• 1:05:04
  I'm going to pick a few for you from the
• 1:05:05
  first presidents. Let's do Washington
• 1:05:08
  issued eight total orders, an average of
• 1:05:11
  one per every year that he served.
• 1:05:15
  John Adams, one, Thomas Jefferson, four,
• 1:05:18
  James Madison, one, James Monroe, one,
• 1:05:21
  John Quincy Adams, three, Andrew
• 1:05:22
  Jackson, 12, Van Beern, 10. Now, I'm not
• 1:05:25
  going to go through all of them, but
• 1:05:27
  those are the starters of the country.
• 1:05:29
  Let's go to the middle uh sets. let's go
• 1:05:33
  when it started to become become a uh
• 1:05:36
  something more prevalent. So up until
• 1:05:39
  the years of uh Grover Cleveland
• 1:05:42
  Harrison Cleveland again Mckenley and
• 1:05:46
  Teddy Roosevelt uh before Roosevelt the
• 1:05:50
  largest number was aund 217
• 1:05:55
  by Ulisses Grant. Okay. And then uh but
• 1:05:59
  he was the largest and then came
• 1:06:03
  Theodore Roosevelt 1,081
• 1:06:08
  William Taft 724 Woodro Wilson 1,83.
• 1:06:14
  These are people that are understanding
• 1:06:16
  their power. Then came Franklin D.
• 1:06:19
  Roosevelt
• 1:06:20
  3,726.
• 1:06:24
  Harry Truman 97. Dwight Eisenhower 484,
• 1:06:29
  John Kennedy 214, and they went back
• 1:06:31
  down. People didn't, you know, people
• 1:06:33
  bitched about this. They didn't like it
• 1:06:35
  when presidents were doing these things.
• 1:06:37
  Now, we're going to get back to uh let's
• 1:06:39
  start with Carter. Carter 320, Reagan
• 1:06:42
  381, George Bush uh 166,
• 1:06:47
  William Clinton 364,
• 1:06:50
  George Bush 2, 291, Barack Obama 276,
• 1:06:56
  Donald Trump first time 220, Joe Biden
• 1:07:00
  162, and Donald Trump so far uh 243.
• 1:07:08
  and he's only been in office a year. So
• 1:07:11
  he is he is averaging 225 a year is what
• 1:07:15
  he's averaging. So trust me, Trump has
• 1:07:19
  taken it back to the levels of
• 1:07:21
  presidents who made large changes like
• 1:07:23
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt 3,726.
• 1:07:27
  But people haven't used them all that
• 1:07:29
  much. But these two 250 I think it's too
• 1:07:32
  many. I don't like it. I think those
• 1:07:35
  rules shouldn't the law shouldn't change
• 1:07:38
  that way with the stroke of a pen. If
• 1:07:40
  it's a policy issue, fine. And uh a lot
• 1:07:43
  of them are policy issues, but a lot of
• 1:07:45
  them are just total changes, you know,
• 1:07:47
  of what we're going to do with these
• 1:07:49
  executive orders.
• 1:07:50
  So, you can see the rise and fall of
• 1:07:53
  that sort of order. Okay. Well, we have
• 1:07:56
  all of that and then we have Trump's use
• 1:08:00
  of it and the Chevron doctrine. So going
• 1:08:05
  from that and turning it a little bit
• 1:08:07
  locally, we have um Missouri statute
• 1:08:12
  uh 536.140
• 1:08:15
  and Chevron deference basically just
• 1:08:17
  said we let the agency interpret um and
• 1:08:21
  if there's anything that uh is uh vague,
• 1:08:26
  then the agency can fill in the blanks
• 1:08:30
  basically as it sees fit. And then if
• 1:08:33
  they overstep,
• 1:08:35
  gez, you can always sue them. If you say
• 1:08:37
  it's an overstep, you can sue them. And
• 1:08:40
  that just takes a while, you know. So
• 1:08:43
  the these people can sue and they can
• 1:08:45
  get what's coming. But if you have
• 1:08:47
  chevron deference, they're never going
• 1:08:49
  to get anywhere cuz the court will have
• 1:08:50
  to say, well, they were just doing their
• 1:08:52
  job, friends and neighbors. They were
• 1:08:55
  just doing their job and they weren't
• 1:08:56
  deferring. I'm sorry. They weren't
• 1:08:59
  creating law. They were just
• 1:09:01
  interpreting it on their own and they're
• 1:09:03
  professional bureaucrats. Maybe they
• 1:09:04
  should be allowed,
• 1:09:06
  but they're not, according to strict
• 1:09:09
  constructionists, allowed to do so.
• 1:09:11
  That's me. Okay, I'm a strict
• 1:09:14
  constructionist. So, and in Missouri,
• 1:09:17
  the likelihood of being a strict
• 1:09:19
  constructionist is even greater,
• 1:09:22
  especially since soon thereafter, within
• 1:09:25
  a year, the Missouri statutes changed.
• 1:09:29
  536.140
• 1:09:31
  which is all about a court reviewing a
• 1:09:35
  decision made by an administrative
• 1:09:37
  official, administrative branch,
• 1:09:39
  executive branch. When the court when a
• 1:09:42
  a citizen or anybody else disputes a
• 1:09:45
  decision made by an agency, they had the
• 1:09:48
  right to sue before under 530.140.
• 1:09:51
  Ever since 2005, that's been a a law
• 1:09:55
  that says here's how that's the first
• 1:09:57
  time the legislature jumped in and said,
• 1:09:58
  "We think court can we think courts can
• 1:10:01
  interpret disputes between the law and
• 1:10:03
  the citizen or between the statute and
• 1:10:05
  the citizen, between the regulator and
• 1:10:07
  the and the citizen regarding decisions
• 1:10:11
  made by an administrator. And here's how
• 1:10:13
  you do it." Or the interpretation of a
• 1:10:16
  statute, whether it's constitutional or
• 1:10:18
  not, here's how it's done. And 536.140
• 1:10:22
  has been around since 2005 and it gave
• 1:10:25
  instructions to the court on how it
• 1:10:28
  would interpret uh disputes between
• 1:10:31
  citizens and regulators. Okay.
• 1:10:34
  And it's never been touched until 2025.
• 1:10:37
  In 2025 it was changed to say that and
• 1:10:42
  post Chevron by the way Jesus because
• 1:10:45
  what we did was even then Missouri
• 1:10:48
  followed the same sort of deference that
• 1:10:52
  uh you know a regulator's a regulator's
• 1:10:54
  regulator and they're professional
• 1:10:56
  regulators here too. Why don't we let
• 1:10:58
  them evaluate the law and interpret it?
• 1:11:03
  So they let that go.
• 1:11:05
  However, 2025 legislature approved
• 1:11:08
  signed into law by the governor uh a
• 1:11:12
  change an amendment to uh 346
• 1:11:17
  uh I'm sorry 536.140
• 1:11:21
  of the revised statute of the state of
• 1:11:24
  Missouri and that change
• 1:11:29
  was quite harsh
• 1:11:31
  uh at least for regulators. Okay,
• 1:11:34
  regulators aren't going to like this at
• 1:11:38
  all. And I'm sure they don't because
• 1:11:41
  they still under this important
• 1:11:45
  change. Now, it says here's the uh sub
• 1:11:50
  paragraph 3 says in actions brought by
• 1:11:54
  or against a state agency, a regulator
• 1:11:59
  after applying all customary tools of
• 1:12:02
  interpretation.
• 1:12:04
  This is you know you after you check it
• 1:12:05
  all out court after you review the case
• 1:12:08
  as outlined above in paragraphs one and
• 1:12:11
  two you come to paragraph three and this
• 1:12:13
  is how you have to interpret it. You
• 1:12:15
  interpret it. This is the legislature
• 1:12:17
  seizing back its own power. Okay?
• 1:12:21
  Seizing back its ability to create law,
• 1:12:25
  not the regulator's choice to interpret
• 1:12:28
  it how they see fit. Nope. That doesn't
• 1:12:31
  exist anymore in Missouri because it
• 1:12:33
  says after applying all customary tools
• 1:12:36
  of interpretation, the court or hearing
• 1:12:39
  officer shall means they must decide any
• 1:12:44
  rema any doubt any remaining doubt. If
• 1:12:48
  there's any in favor of a reasonable
• 1:12:51
  interpretation that limits agency power,
• 1:12:56
  limits the power of the regulator. Limit
• 1:12:58
  that person. stop them from overreaching
• 1:13:02
  and maximizes
• 1:13:05
  individual
• 1:13:06
  liberty.
• 1:13:09
  That's the sentence.
• 1:13:11
  This is the club that we get a beat up
• 1:13:15
  regulators with in Missouri
• 1:13:18
  in the court.
• 1:13:21
  And those cases are weaving their way
• 1:13:24
  through the court system just like
• 1:13:27
  they're going doing nationally over the
• 1:13:30
  era of Chevron deference ending. People
• 1:13:33
  who don't like heavy duty regulators or
• 1:13:36
  some kid, you know, with pink hair
• 1:13:39
  dictating uh you know what environmental
• 1:13:42
  law is going to be cuz he couldn't get a
• 1:13:45
  a real job. He went and took the easy
• 1:13:47
  job of regulating you know the
• 1:13:49
  environment. You know, this is what I
• 1:13:51
  want to do. I don't want to carry flags
• 1:13:53
  anymore. I want to work at the EPA
• 1:13:55
  because we're going to take down
• 1:13:57
  Chevron. We're going to take down these
• 1:13:59
  people that want to do something. I And
• 1:14:02
  by the way, I don't mean to get too
• 1:14:03
  politically about that. Agencies have
• 1:14:05
  their jobs, but the job is what the
• 1:14:08
  legislature gives you. And the
• 1:14:11
  legislature, if you if you're a
• 1:14:12
  regulator by God, you better have read
• 1:14:15
  your uh statute that applies to you. I'm
• 1:14:19
  afraid a lot of these people haven't
• 1:14:21
  read it. You know, certainly in the ATC,
• 1:14:24
  they're lacking it. Alcohol Tobacco
• 1:14:26
  Control of Missouri, they haven't read
• 1:14:28
  their statute. 531 or I'm sorry, not
• 1:14:31
  531, 311. What am I talking about? 311
• 1:14:34
  or 407. 311 regarding alcohol. 407
• 1:14:39
  talking tobacco. That's the only power
• 1:14:41
  you have is given to you in those two
• 1:14:44
  statutes. That's it. You don't get to go
• 1:14:47
  into other statutes and yank power out
• 1:14:49
  of there. You don't get to do that.
• 1:14:52
  That's not allowed. And nobody gave you
• 1:14:55
  that power. Nobody. You didn't get that
• 1:14:59
  power from the Missouri legislature. So,
• 1:15:01
  quit taking it. Quit stretching it into
• 1:15:04
  where you want it to be. So, that I
• 1:15:07
  believe is important
• 1:15:10
  um to know. And uh I'm going to share,
• 1:15:12
  like I told you, I'm going to share my
• 1:15:13
  article with you. I got we got a
• 1:15:15
  response uh to uh Oops, I knocked
• 1:15:18
  something down. Hold on.
• 1:15:22
  Garl, get mad at me if I make a mess in
• 1:15:24
  his lovely studio. And actually, he
• 1:15:26
  won't. He's always real good to me. Uh
• 1:15:28
  but the uh we got an answer to uh the
• 1:15:32
  Sunshine request we sent, and it is Gez,
• 1:15:36
  I'm going to share it in its entirety on
• 1:15:37
  Friday for sure. these people,
• 1:15:41
  they're still they're out of control is
• 1:15:43
  what I say on the alcohol tobacco
• 1:15:45
  control. People are out of control. And
• 1:15:49
  uh we shared an article with uh all the
• 1:15:52
  state reps and and the Senate yesterday
• 1:15:56
  that I wrote that I'm going to share on
• 1:15:59
  Friday on our civic outlaws program.
• 1:16:02
  I've I've offered and that offer is
• 1:16:05
  still exists if one of the regulators
• 1:16:08
  from ATC, one of the career regulators
• 1:16:12
  that gets to interpret their stuff or
• 1:16:15
  perhaps a a a uh a a lawyer representing
• 1:16:19
  them. I don't care. Call and convince me
• 1:16:22
  how wrong I am. Let's walk through it
• 1:16:24
  and you tell me why I am wrong. Tell me.
• 1:16:29
  I'm happy to learn. Come to come to on
• 1:16:33
  the show. Call in 5737468020.
• 1:16:37
  Call in. Talk to me. Explain to me why
• 1:16:43
  I'm wrong. I'm happy to listen to that.
• 1:16:47
  I'm I'm I'm I'm happy to be educated and
• 1:16:50
  and I will let you have your say and
• 1:16:54
  tell me why tell the tell the listening
• 1:16:56
  audience why I am wrong. I'm happy to do
• 1:16:59
  that. I don't care. I think it's great.
• 1:17:02
  I appreciate I admire people who stand
• 1:17:05
  up for what they believe. And if you
• 1:17:08
  believe the regulator is the answer to
• 1:17:11
  all of life's problems, come on and tell
• 1:17:15
  me why. Even if you're a regulator,
• 1:17:18
  especially if you're a regulator, but be
• 1:17:20
  prepared to say where you derive your
• 1:17:23
  power from,
• 1:17:25
  how you use that power, and most
• 1:17:28
  importantly,
• 1:17:30
  where your
• 1:17:32
  dis discretion ends, where what are your
• 1:17:38
  what are the discretionary choices you
• 1:17:41
  make every single day? What are they?
• 1:17:45
  And if you go to civicoutlaws.com and
• 1:17:48
  you see some of the things that we [ __ ]
• 1:17:49
  about or that we are researching, it's
• 1:17:52
  stuff like the flock camera. You know,
• 1:17:55
  I'm very eager to to uh do some um
• 1:18:00
  some um sunshine requesting, some
• 1:18:03
  freedom of information requesting of
• 1:18:06
  these decisions of want to talk about
• 1:18:09
  regulation and stealing authority that's
• 1:18:12
  not yours. flock cameras. Uh, let's talk
• 1:18:15
  about that. I follow the case in uh uh
• 1:18:18
  Virginia uh Richmond that's going on
• 1:18:21
  against the Richmond Police Department
• 1:18:23
  and uh I I'm I'm interested in the law
• 1:18:26
  that creates. I think there ought to be
• 1:18:27
  somebody who who engages in that exact
• 1:18:30
  same thing in central Missouri. I'm
• 1:18:33
  against these cameras. I I I'm I'm
• 1:18:35
  against law enforcement being able to
• 1:18:37
  use those cameras willy-nilly and some
• 1:18:39
  police officer whose girlfriend, you
• 1:18:41
  know, is cheating on him. He gets to
• 1:18:43
  follow her and her boyfriend using a
• 1:18:45
  flock camera system by sending something
• 1:18:48
  without a warrant. That's a warrantless
• 1:18:50
  search. You know, I'm against I Gez, I
• 1:18:53
  could lecture now on ATC. I've got
• 1:18:55
  article number three coming out and that
• 1:18:58
  article, which I've already shared with
• 1:18:59
  with not me, but our group has shared
• 1:19:02
  with um every state rep, every senator.
• 1:19:07
  or the article is called when a
• 1:19:09
  licensing agency becomes a clestined
• 1:19:12
  police department.
• 1:19:14
  I'm shocked by some of the stuff that
• 1:19:16
  that that they have done. I'm I'm
• 1:19:19
  shocked that they carry weapons. I I am
• 1:19:22
  totally shocked by that. And and if
• 1:19:24
  somebody could come on How about some
• 1:19:27
  legislator come on and explain to me why
• 1:19:30
  they carry weapons? How about that? How
• 1:19:32
  about you bring How about some
• 1:19:34
  legislator come on here and tell me uh
• 1:19:37
  well, you know, they get the discretion
• 1:19:40
  to decide who carries the weapon. The
• 1:19:42
  director of of uh or the the supervisor
• 1:19:45
  of alcohol, tobacco, the supervisor gets
• 1:19:47
  to determine whether whether an officer
• 1:19:49
  carries in a weapon to a to a liquor
• 1:19:51
  establishment. Check it out.
• 1:19:54
  I had a bar. I I had a I owned three
• 1:19:57
  bars in my life. I've owned three bars.
• 1:19:59
  had three liquor licenses, you know, way
• 1:20:01
  back when. And what they did when they
• 1:20:03
  checked me out is they say, uh, you
• 1:20:06
  know, you got to go through, you can't
• 1:20:07
  have a felony, you can't have this, you
• 1:20:09
  know, and the getting the license is
• 1:20:11
  fairly easy, right? You get the license
• 1:20:13
  and you move on. You put it in place.
• 1:20:15
  Then some guy comes and inspects you.
• 1:20:18
  From time to time, they send out
• 1:20:20
  regulator man and regulator man comes to
• 1:20:23
  your place. You hope he's not a
• 1:20:24
  bureaucrat. You hope he's an
• 1:20:26
  administrator. Why in the world would I
• 1:20:28
  want regulator man with a gun on his hip
• 1:20:31
  and a badge in his pocket
• 1:20:34
  pretending to be a policeman? What in
• 1:20:37
  the world is that all about? Alcohol and
• 1:20:41
  tobacco control. Why in the world are
• 1:20:43
  they armed? What What are you after
• 1:20:47
  coming into my bar armed? It makes no
• 1:20:51
  sense. I I wouldn't allow anybody else
• 1:20:53
  in carrying a weapon. Why in the world
• 1:20:55
  are you coming in? If you want to be a
• 1:20:57
  policeman, go join the police force.
• 1:21:00
  You're a licensing person. That's it.
• 1:21:02
  You're an administrator. And I don't
• 1:21:04
  mean that bad. We need administrators,
• 1:21:06
  too.
• 1:21:08
  Do your job. Don't go pretending to be a
• 1:21:11
  police department. And so these guys
• 1:21:14
  have had police department monikers
• 1:21:17
  everywhere. They're carrying badges.
• 1:21:19
  They're doing undercover at at places.
• 1:21:22
  They're going in undercover. We got to
• 1:21:25
  go in undercover. And then and then
• 1:21:26
  worse, they have a document that's
• 1:21:29
  called the alcohol tobacco control
• 1:21:33
  police department.
• 1:21:35
  It's an investigative report. It's just
• 1:21:37
  like your municipal police department.
• 1:21:40
  Some guy I, you know, I went in
• 1:21:42
  undercover to this uh to this uh oh, I
• 1:21:45
  don't know to what whatever law he's
• 1:21:47
  trying to get. I I I went undercover and
• 1:21:50
  and uh met with the drug kingpin, you
• 1:21:53
  know, here. Is it because it's more
• 1:21:56
  prevalent to have the drug kingpin in a
• 1:21:59
  place with a liquor license? That's
• 1:22:01
  nonsense. A bar is a bar. The fact is
• 1:22:04
  the mafia is not hanging out in the bar.
• 1:22:07
  You want to attack the mafia, come to me
• 1:22:09
  and say, "I'm going to have an un
• 1:22:10
  unlicensed or I'm sorry, a u a a police
• 1:22:14
  officer, a a policeman is going to be
• 1:22:18
  here undercover and he's going to have a
• 1:22:20
  weapon. Me as the as the bar owner,
• 1:22:23
  maybe I need to know that
• 1:22:25
  or not." But that person that's coming
• 1:22:29
  in under cover is under a different law.
• 1:22:32
  if he's a policeman, if he's if he's
• 1:22:36
  with the FBI, if that's a law
• 1:22:38
  enforcement agency, right? If he's with
• 1:22:42
  the uh uh highway patrol, he's a
• 1:22:46
  policeman and he's he has the authority
• 1:22:49
  to arrest people for crime. Alcohol
• 1:22:51
  tobacco control does not have that
• 1:22:53
  authority. They don't have it. They've
• 1:22:55
  not been granted that. Why in the world
• 1:22:57
  are they carrying weapons into liquor
• 1:22:59
  establishments? BS. I call I call
• 1:23:02
  [ __ ] That's that's nonsense.
• 1:23:04
  Anyway, that article I shall share with
• 1:23:07
  you in its entirety on Friday. And
• 1:23:11
  that's article number three in the
• 1:23:13
  series.
• 1:23:15
  Meantime, uh, Civic Outlaws has sent out
• 1:23:18
  some requests. Uh, and and and it's
• 1:23:21
  pretty funny what we got back. We asked
• 1:23:23
  for documents that show there's a form
• 1:23:26
  and I didn't bring my glasses. Oh, yes,
• 1:23:27
  I did. They're right here. I have my
• 1:23:29
  glasses. Hang on. As we f as we wind
• 1:23:32
  down today's show, here's what I'll tell
• 1:23:35
  you. There is a document called
• 1:23:41
  and it's an inspection document put out
• 1:23:43
  to you. It's called the routine
• 1:23:44
  inspection report alcohol and tobacco
• 1:23:48
  premises. Okay? And that form is called
• 1:23:54
  Missouri 812 M812-0569.
• 1:24:02
  And so we sent a sunshine request to get
• 1:24:06
  my curiosity was
• 1:24:09
  how this form has changed. Where did the
• 1:24:13
  form come from? Number one. Number two,
• 1:24:16
  how has it changed over the years? you
• 1:24:19
  know, where's where's a gun? And what
• 1:24:22
  they sent me is really
• 1:24:25
  kind of what they sent us really. It's
• 1:24:26
  kind of a joke. Okay, we've it's
• 1:24:28
  nonsense. They
• 1:24:31
  what they've answered. So, they sent me
• 1:24:33
  three forms scribbled up, you know, they
• 1:24:35
  got lines drawn on them and this not
• 1:24:37
  blank forms. They've they've got uh
• 1:24:39
  check marks and uh they've they've uh
• 1:24:41
  drawn on them. They've edited them with
• 1:24:43
  with pen afterward. One of them is dated
• 1:24:48
  uh 10 of 22 appears to be the last one.
• 1:24:51
  That one's clean. That one they could
• 1:24:54
  provide me with nothing on it. Right.
• 1:24:56
  That that's just the clean form. Then
• 1:24:59
  they provided two prior versions. Okay.
• 1:25:02
  One dated
• 1:25:04
  um
• 1:25:06
  March of 2021.
• 1:25:08
  So they changed it in March of 2021
• 1:25:11
  because before that they had one dated
• 1:25:14
  with a change of uh March of 17.
• 1:25:19
  They didn't provide a blank form prior
• 1:25:21
  to that. So now we've had to send out
• 1:25:23
  and ask a question. Are you you know
• 1:25:26
  does that mean that this form didn't
• 1:25:28
  exist before 2017? uh that this was
• 1:25:32
  there. No, because we asked for
• 1:25:33
  predecessor forms. If there's another
• 1:25:35
  form uh that is um
• 1:25:38
  um you know the the predecessor to this
• 1:25:41
  form that they were using for
• 1:25:43
  inspections, we've asked for
• 1:25:45
  clarification and asked for a blank form
• 1:25:48
  because on one of these they talk about
• 1:25:50
  topics discussed and the topics weren't
• 1:25:52
  even the correct topic. They had to line
• 1:25:54
  them out and write in the proper
• 1:25:55
  regulation to the side of it. and the
• 1:25:57
  other one they scribbled out all the um
• 1:26:01
  all the numbers on the left that outline
• 1:26:02
  the topic numbers and then on the bottom
• 1:26:04
  they put extra stuff in there and and
• 1:26:07
  maybe they had changed the statute but
• 1:26:08
  the orders wrong or whatever. Maybe
• 1:26:11
  that's when they discovered they had to
• 1:26:12
  change it. So we don't know whether it's
• 1:26:14
  just somebody changed the document all
• 1:26:16
  wrong or whe
• 1:26:19
  they didn't. So we're asking again we're
• 1:26:21
  sending it to us. Plus they sent us a
• 1:26:23
  document saying uh the other documents
• 1:26:25
  are requested. We requested all the
• 1:26:28
  forms that were executed. Just the form,
• 1:26:30
  not the investigative report, just the
• 1:26:33
  form is all we want. Going back to
• 1:26:36
  January of 2024. So assumably they have
• 1:26:40
  a system that they can get on the system
• 1:26:42
  and say, "Okay, we've done in 2024 we
• 1:26:47
  did uh 500 inspections." Okay. In 2025,
• 1:26:52
  we did 500 inspections statewide. 2026,
• 1:26:55
  we've done so many inspections uh
• 1:26:57
  statewide. And each one of those has a
• 1:27:00
  document on the very top of it, which is
• 1:27:03
  this inspection form. The inspection
• 1:27:05
  form is very generic. It doesn't say
• 1:27:07
  anything except the place and the
• 1:27:09
  address. And then going through the
• 1:27:11
  form, we said, "Give us the one that has
• 1:27:14
  the check marks for the ones that are
• 1:27:15
  important to us, which were improper
• 1:27:17
  acts, which they created themselves."
• 1:27:20
  and uh lwdness which they also created
• 1:27:22
  themselves. And so we don't know what
• 1:27:24
  you know we want to find out who's been
• 1:27:26
  inspected for these things. Assumably it
• 1:27:29
  was everybody. So all you really got to
• 1:27:31
  do if everybody's got this form is you
• 1:27:34
  just need to go and find the ones that
• 1:27:36
  are checkmarked with a for box 14 or 15
• 1:27:39
  as a check that you either discussed or
• 1:27:42
  somebody you know was investigated for
• 1:27:44
  that. They say they say and their
• 1:27:48
  initial response was, "Well, that's
• 1:27:50
  going to take us a year and and a month
• 1:27:53
  or something like that. It's going to
• 1:27:54
  take us a year. It's going to cost you
• 1:27:56
  $8,000
• 1:27:58
  and we want it only in electronic
• 1:27:59
  format. So, pay us $8,000 and we'll go
• 1:28:03
  look for these forms you want." How is
• 1:28:05
  that government openness? How? It's
• 1:28:08
  nonsense. They say it's going to take
• 1:28:10
  them three minutes per form
• 1:28:15
  to look at it and see whether it's
• 1:28:17
  checked. Well, I you know what? I don't
• 1:28:18
  even care if you look at it. Send every
• 1:28:20
  single one of them. Send them all from
• 1:28:23
  January 1, 2024 until now. Or say, let's
• 1:28:28
  go back each quarter. How about would it
• 1:28:30
  be okay uh somebody call me? Somebody
• 1:28:32
  call us and talk about it and go, well,
• 1:28:34
  we can't do that or it's going to cost
• 1:28:36
  you too much money. explain why the the
• 1:28:38
  the they say no, it's going to take this
• 1:28:41
  and and that's assuming we spend if it's
• 1:28:44
  three minutes per form and we put five
• 1:28:47
  hours a week in, you can have an answer
• 1:28:50
  in a year plus and it's going to cost
• 1:28:53
  you 8,000 bucks for an electronic form.
• 1:28:56
  I don't you know if you want to go check
• 1:28:57
  them out, that's on you. That's not on
• 1:29:00
  me. Just give me all the forms. It's
• 1:29:03
  public information, is it not? This is
• 1:29:06
  what they're doing is trying to stop us
• 1:29:09
  from getting these forms. That's what
• 1:29:11
  they're doing. And so if a legislature
• 1:29:13
  wants to gets involved in that, which I
• 1:29:15
  think they should, that's where we
• 1:29:16
  should go. Oops. I've talked all the way
• 1:29:18
  up to the show. So, uh, listen on Friday
• 1:29:20
  and we're going to continue with this.
• 1:29:21
  Uh, uh, I find it entertaining. Of
• 1:29:23
  course, I'm living it, but uh, uh, this
• 1:29:26
  is Samuel Trap. You are listening to
• 1:29:28
  International Flavor and, uh, I kind of
• 1:29:31
  eased into the Civic Outlaws quite a bit
• 1:29:33
  today and yesterday. Follow us every
• 1:29:35
  day. Listen to damradio.comlive
• 1:29:38
  in all of your spare time. And me
• 1:29:41
  specifically, go to
• 1:29:42
  internationalflavor.com.
• 1:29:43
  Listen to all the back shows. And I very
• 1:29:45
  much appreciate you being